Gay Patriot Header Image

Is it hateful to oppose inclusion of “marriage equality” plank in Democratic Party platform?

Many on the gay slur Republicans as haters for opposing state recognition of same-sex marriage.  Guess that means that a Democratic president who opposes inclusion of a plank favoring such recognition in his party’s platform is also a “hater”:

In the past month, almost half of all Democratic senators, several of Obama’s national campaign co-chairs, the House Minority Leader and the chairman of the Democratic convention, among others, have said they support adding marriage equality to the platform. Were this the position that the president held, such proclamations would not be a problem. But Obama says he is still publicly “evolving” on marriage equality. And the wave of support to make it a component of his convention has both surprised aides and set off a private push to keep emotions and expectations in check.

Interviews with more than a dozen party officials and activists reveal that despitewidespread and growing support for marriage equality among Americans, the issue is still viewed as politically sensitive in the top ranks of the Democratic Party. While many high-profile figures have publicly advocated for including strong language in the platform, the Obama campaign and the allied Democratic National Committee are searching for ways to split the difference: showing support for equality but stopping short of a full-fledged endorsement.

“What would it take,” Allahpundit wonders, for Obama to back gay marriage “before the election“?

Well, for starters, he’d need to be worried about the youth vote. This is an issue that could get them to perk up if it looks like turnout is sagging; the question is whether it’ll cost him more votes in older demographics, where turnout is almost always higher, than it’ll earn him in younger ones. (more…)

Andrew Breitbart, from grave, puts Bill Maher on defense

In his interview with Bill Maher posted this morning, ABC News’ senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper offering a bit of commentary in posing his first question to the former funny man:

So with all the criticism of Rush Limbaugh for his comments about the Georgetown Law student, conservatives claim that there’s a double standard, with President Obama, Democrats and the media far more tolerant of offensive language when wielded by liberal or progressive media figures against conservative women. Is that a fair comparison? You have certainly used offensive words to describe some politicians you don’t like.

A leading journalist (and a good one) in the legacy media addresses an issue long reserved to right-of-center editorial pages and conservative blogs.  Bill Maher, perhaps for the first time, has been been forced to defend his mean-spirited anti-Republican rhetoric — for more than just one news cycle.  Instead of acknowledging that he may have overstepped the line or apologized (as Rush did) for an error of judgment, he whines that he’s just a comedian, trying to score a few laughs

Hugh Hewitt finds that Maher’s conclusion where the HBO host claims he had defended Rush’s “right to stay on the air” reeks of “self-importance” and “smashes Maher’s ‘comedian’ defense if it had any substance for anyone to begin with.  Simple comedians don’t take to the ramparts to defend anything.  They tell jokes.

In playing defense, however, Maher reveals the hypocrisy of his position.   (more…)

Stroking his ego by attacking his adversaries?

In a blog post this morning, Jim Geraghty repeated an observation he has made before that the president’s “furious schedule of fundraisers is driven less by a need for campaign cash than by his ego’s need for constant praise and adoration.

Sometimes, it seems that even the president’s official speeches serve a similar function.  He speaks not so much to defend his policies, but to demonize his political adversaries and, in so doing, elevate himself in the eyes of audiences who really, really hate Republican leaders and conservative ideas.  In a speech today “at Prince George’s Community College in Largo, Md., a smug President Barack Obama,” reports Tina Korbe, Obama did just that, smearing “opponents of his energy policies as backward and unscientific in their approach”:

“Now, here’s the sad thing. Lately, we have heard a lot of professional politicians, a lot of the folks who were running for a certain office, who shall go unnamed, they’ve been talking down new sources of energy. They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. They were against raising fuel standards. I guess they like gas guzzlers. They think that’s good for our future. We’re trying to move towards the future. They want to be stuck in the past!” Obama exclaimed to cheers from the crowd. “If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they probably must have been founding members of the flat earth society. They would not believe that the world was round!”

Can you imagine George W. Bush leveling those accusations against Democrats?

Korbe points out how the president misrepresents the Republican stance on energy: (more…)

College commissars instruct gays to come out for their own good

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:36 pm - March 15, 2012.
Filed under: Academia,Gay PC Silliness

When, in 1981, the Dartmouth Review published the names of the officers of that college’s “Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) along with material that had been taken from the GSA’s confidential files“, the college was in an uproar over this breach of privacy.  Students protested, incensed that the grandfather of one of those students learned about his (closeted) progeny’s sexuality from the Review.

Three years later, when a Review staffer secretly taped a meeting of the GSA nad published a portion of the transcript, the college was (as well it should have been) up in arms, with its administration only reluctantly choosing not to bring charges.  Then-Dean Shanahan, however, did send a letter to “the Dartmouth community calling on them to ‘censure’ the Review for its ‘insensitivity.'”

Now, such “insensitivity” comes not from conservative campus papers, but from colleges themselves, at least here in politically correct California:  “Officials of the University of California system have proposed asking incoming freshmen to identify their sexual orientation, a move that might cement such declarations as an emerging topic in the college admissions process.

Ann Althouse whose post reminded me about the article (had previously seen a link on a Facebook page) quipped:

It’s for their own good. The university has services it wants to provide. All the government’s intrusions into your private life are for your own good. You will be given what is good for you, so come on now, tell us all about everything.

How far we’ve come and how backward we’re moving.

Now, I agree we’re all better off if we come out, but it the business of a university to ask us about our sexual orientation.  Nor to judge us by that difference.

Burn Rate: Why is the Obama campaign spending so much money*?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:18 pm - March 15, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

In his Wall Street Journal editorial this morning on the president’s failure to reach his fundraising targets, Karl Rove wonders at how fast the Democrat is spending his campaign cash:

The final financial challenge facing Mr. Obama’s campaign is how fast it is burning through the cash it is raising. Compare the 2012 Obama re-election campaign with the 2004 Bush re-election campaign. Mr. Obama’s campaign spent 25% of what it raised in the second quarter of 2011, while Mr. Bush’s campaign spent only 9% in the second quarter of 2003. In the third quarter it was 46% for Obama versus 26% for Bush; for the fourth quarter it was 57% versus 40%. In January 2012 the Obama campaign spent 158% of what it raised, while the Bush campaign spent 60% in January 2004.

At the end of January, Team Obama had $91.7 million in cash in its coffers and those of the DNC. At the same point in 2004, the Bush campaign and Republican National Committee had $122 million in cash combined.

Mr. Obama lacks serious opposition in his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination.  A campaign spending 158% of what it raised ten full months before the election.

Seems his campaign team spends the money it raises the same way his governing team spends the money the federal government collects  — and intends to collect from future generations.

* (more…)

No, Rush didn’t set a trap, but his haters did witness the firepower of a fully armed and operational right-wing blogosphere

In the wake of slut-gate, David Axelrod has has to put off an appearance on Bill Maher’s HBO show and “comedian Louis CK recently pulled out as entertainer at the Radio-TV Correspondents Dinner.”  In short, the standard some of the left set up to destroy Rush has backfired.

Some might say that Rush himself laid the trap, but Ann Althouse disagrees:

Rush Limbaugh is a media genius, but I don’t think he’s enough of a genius to have laid this trap. It has worked as a trap. By going too far, on one well-chosen occasion — picking on a young woman about sex — he got an immense reaction from Rush haters, who smelled blood and imagined that they could use this incident to drive Rush off the air. In making their strong argument, Rush’s opponents articulated a rule demonizing those who use offensive language to describe a woman.

Pretty much sums it up.  Read the whole thing.

Those who sought to drive Rush off the air were not yet accustomed to the power of a fully armed and operational right-wing blogosphere, able to track down and publicize. left-wing name-calling with just a few keystrokes and compare it to Rush’s language (for which the talker has since apologized) that had caused fainting fits in news rooms and Democratic offices.

Obama Fundraising has its privileges:
Dozens of donors snag invitations to White House State Dinner

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:41 am - March 15, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Obama Hopenchange

All told,” writes Devin Dwyer of ABC News, “41 of the 364 expected attendees” at last night’s White House state dinner in honor of British Prime Minister David Cameron “are Obama campaign bundlers, or volunteer fundraisers who give the legal maximum and then gather checks from friends and colleagues who do the same.”

Nor is this, Dwyer adds, “the first time Obama’s campaign donors have been spotted at a White House state dinner.  In October, at least half a dozen attended the evening in honor of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.”

Would be interesting to compare this to the number of Bush campaign bundlers who snagged invitations to state dinners in his administration.  AP reporter Jack Gillum claims that that good man did indeed invite

dozens of his “pioneer” supporters to state dinners, and President Bill Clinton did the same. But Obama previously has criticized Washington’s pay-for-access privileges, and even donors themselves complained early in his presidency that they were kept at arm’s length.

He doesn’t provide an actual number there, but did find that his organization’s review some of the donors at the dinner had “written big checks to Priorities USA Action, a ‘super’ political action committee run by former White House aides.”

(Politico reports that there were “at least 50” bundlers at the dinner:  “There are 43 invitees, plus seven spouses or partners who are also listed as bundlers, on the dinner list.”.)